Scanman, I did a few searches, and the closest I could find is this:http://s8int.com/dinolit35.htmlIt's on the lower half of the page.The site seems somewhat outdated, though. That doesn't make the artifact any less real.

It appears to be found somewhere in Italy? I don't know. I don't see any reason not to think it's real.

Scanman, I did a few searches, and the closest I could find is this:http://s8int.com/dinolit35.htmlIt's on the lower half of the page.The site seems somewhat outdated, though. That doesn't make the artifact any less real.

It appears to be found somewhere in Italy? I don't know. I don't see any reason not to think it's real.

Cata,

The site is very intriguing.

Since there have been no dinosaur bones found in strata that correlates to an era when humans were around, I would have to say that what is mostly depicted is from the imagination or is being poorly depicted as well as interpreted.

I would not, however, rule out sea-dwelling creatures...there is still a lot more to be discovered in the depths of the sea.

I knew you'd resort to a fallacy such as circular reasoning.
You're saying that my evidence is wrong, simply because you assume the fossil record to be chronological.
This is evidence that suggests otherwise.
You have an assumption, I have evidence.

I knew you'd resort to a fallacy such as circular reasoning.You're saying that my evidence is wrong, simply because you assume the fossil record to be chronological.This is evidence that suggests otherwise.You have an assumption, I have evidence.

What you have are images that could be anything from distortions of crocodiles and creatures from the common era to pure imagination...to pure hoxes.

What paleontologist have are the bones and the geologic record.

I will still concede that what is in the depths of the sea is not fully known.

Irrelevant.No, they have just bones. There is no evidence for a chronological fossil record. It's just an assumption.This could clear things up:http://creationwiki....logical_sortingCrocodiles definitely have giant plates on their back.Such as...?Extremely unlikely that pure imagination could be so accurate to the real thing.

It is not impropbable that someone could envision what a stegosaur would look like if they came across it's fossilized remains...they were doing this 200 years ago.

If someone like Plato (a genius by most standards) saw these type of remains they could easily compile crude reconstructions.

Hydrosorting of fossils is a joke. No one within the scientific community takes it seriously.

Take the miniscule 'foram' for example. It would be impossible for hydrosorting to account for their evolutionary developmental positioning in the geologic column.Any petrogeologist knows this...it is part of biostratigraphy.

It is not impropbable that someone could envision what a stegosaur would look like if they came across it's fossilized remains...they were doing this 200 years ago.

If someone like Plato (a genius by most standards) saw these type of remains they could easily compile crude reconstructions.

Hydrosorting of fossils is a joke. No one within the scientific community takes it seriously.

Take the miniscule 'foram' for example. It would be impossible for hydrosorting to account for their evolutionary developmental positioning in the geologic column.Any petrogeologist knows this...it is part of biostratigraphy.

But aren't dinosaur bones buried in the ground? They are also pretty fragile. People don't find the things on the ground in open air.
Just stop evading the truth.

About hydrologic sorting,

First of all, we have evidence that hydrologic sorting exists. It is a natural process that happens. It is only logical that it would happen during a worldwide flood. You have no evidence that the fossil record is chronological. Only an assumption.

But anyway, I'm going to back out of this. I don't want to waste my time, evolutionists tend to never change their minds.

I knew you'd resort to a fallacy such as circular reasoning.You're saying that my evidence is wrong, simply because you assume the fossil record to be chronological.This is evidence that suggests otherwise.You have an assumption, I have evidence.

It's not circular reasoning. The fossil record is open to far less interpretation than the artifacts you posted. The fossil record was brought up because its evidence. Besides, you've done the same thing. The fossil record is not chronological because your evidence says otherwise. Again, you posted what appeared to be a pig, but the creationist website you got it from claimed it was a????

Cool.

Passion for a subject can make up for a lack of degree sometimes.

Peace

Bruce

I interned for BP after my junior year of college. I asked if I could stick around instead of going back, and my boss said he'd find out if any roughnecks were needed since I didn't have a degree yet.

The sorting of fossils in different rock layers can be explained by hydrological sorting. Assuming that the layers were laid down over millions of years rather than a short time frame during and immediately after a catastrophic world wide flood and claiming this proves the ape and dino did not live at the same time is begging the question. If you are saying that certain fossils are not found in the same layer because they existed at different times. And then saying they lived at different times because they are found in different rock layers. It is begging the question and circular.

If you are saying that certain fossils are not found in the same layer because they existed at different times. And then saying they lived at different times because they are found in different rock layers. It is begging the question and circular.

That's saying the same thing in different ways. There's nothing circular about it.

But anyway, I'm going to back out of this. I don't want to waste my time, evolutionists tend to never change their minds.

Most people in this debate do not change their minds about evolution. This is true for evos and creos. If you entered this debate to change everyone's mind, no matter how noble a cause, you will most likely not succeed. I'm not saying don't try, just don't expect anyone to change, on either side. Something to keep in mind as you venture further and further into the debate.

[quote name='Darkness45 Posted Jan 25 2010' date=' 03:41 PM']Most people in this debate do not change their minds about evolution. This is true for evos and creos. If you entered this debate to change everyone's mind, no matter how noble a cause, you will most likely not succeed] This is very true Darkness. The reason I believe we don't change our minds is because we deal with and argue for and against evidence. We all have an existing world view which effects how we see and interpret evidence. Most people are not aware of there own world view. To them "it just is the way they see it." I have see many optical illusions which seem impossible from one perspective but from another perspective it is quite obvious. That is the way it is in these forums. As long as we deal with an evidence first perspective we will never solve the debate. the pic of the dino/pig is a classic example of people seeing what fits their world view.

Most people in this debate do not change their minds about evolution. This is true for evos and creos. If you entered this debate to change everyone's mind, no matter how noble a cause, you will most likely not succeed. I'm not saying don't try, just don't expect anyone to change, on either side. Something to keep in mind as you venture further and further into the debate.

Hi Darkness,

I miss you. You are a great conversationalist.

I agree with you. Most people that come to this board to debate have strong opinions and have thought about and researched the subject more than the average person. That changing minds can occur but it would be slow, or supernatural intervention occurred.

One of my goals is to show that the creation I.D. side is not a bunch of IDiots as we are sometimes portrayed. Also, a good debate keeps me interested in the subject , forces me to look things up and peruse a more complete understanding of biology.

I agree with you.Ã‚Â Most people that come to this board to debate have strong opinions and have thought about and researched the subject more than the average person.Ã‚Â That changing minds can occur but it would be slow, or supernatural intervention occurred.

One of my goals is to show that the creation I.D. side is not a bunch of IDiots as we are sometimes portrayed.Ã‚Â Also, a good debate keeps me interested in the subject , forces me to look things up and peruse a more complete understanding of biology.Ã‚Â

Hope to see you soon,

Bruce

Well, both sides have their idiots. I work with some very good engineers and geoscientists who are staunch creationists although they're all of the old Earth variety. I've also run into liberal idiots who think all believers are stupid and support evolution despite knowing nothing about it.